| 207
‘International Journal of Bilingualism’ • Volume 10 • Number 2 •Running
2006, 207–
240|
Head
Thresholds leading to shift:
Spanish/English codeswitching
and convergence in Georgia, U.S.A.
Daniel J. Smith
Clemson University, U.S.A.
Abstract
Key words
In the speech of members of a Georgia (U.S.A.) community of immigrants
from Latin America, as their bilingual sentences of Spanish/English reach
codeswitching
a certain threshold of English content, Spanish morphosyntactic patterns
begin to converge toward those of English. Data from naturally-occurconvergence
ring conversations by 56 children and adults of both sexes are analyzed
within Myers-Scotton’s (1993 [1997], 2002) Matrix Language Frame model.
language contact
Eight language types were identified, including monolingual Spanish
and English turns, codeswitched turns, and turns showing convergence
(morpheme strings from one language with some grammatical structure from the other). An
instance of each language type per turn was counted as a token of that language type. Each
sentence of a multisentence turn was counted as a separate token. Tokens of each type were
counted per informant. A rank ordering of the data by percentage of monolingual Spanish
allows observation of how certain thresholds signal changes in the types of language mixing.
Analysis reveals that percentages of monolingual and codeswitched utterances pattern in relation to percentages of utterances showing convergence, indicating that informants’ Spanish does
not begin to converge toward English until fewer than 70% of their utterances are monolingual
Spanish. The data thus show that both codeswitching and convergence are mechanisms of
language shift and change from dominance in one language to another. Social factors are also
shown to be associated with the linguistic patterns.
1 Introduction
Bilingual language contact over time may lead to language change. Linguistically, this
change involves the contact of different lexical and grammatical systems. This study
focuses primarily on lexical and grammatical patterns in language change with additional reference to related social factors including gender, age, place of origin, time spent
in contact with a second language, time spent in school, type of employment, preferred
language, and which language is used where, when and with whom. The study shows
three steps or stages of language change in a language contact community: (Stage 1)
mostly monolingual sentences in the community’s first or original dominant language
with slight lexical and even less grammatical influence from the community’s new or
second language; (Stage 2) increased lexical influence from the new language, and the
two languages affect each other grammatically; (Stage 3) the new language has become
Address for correspondence
Department of Languages, 508 Strode Tower, Clemson University, Box 340535, Clemson, SC 29634 - 0535, U.S.A.;
e-mail: < [email protected] >.
‘International Journal of Bilingualism’ is ©Kingston Press Ltd. 1997 – 2006
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
208
D. J. Smith
the dominant language but with continuing grammatical and lexical influence from the
first language. Between stages one and two and between stages two and three there are
apparent thresholds of change: (between stages 1 and 2) at around 70% monolingual
first language utterances; and (between stages 2 and 3) at around 40% monolingual
first language utterances.
Unlike most other language contact studies in the literature that either examine well
established contact situations (e.g., Thomason & Kaufman, 1988) or languages that have
been in contact at least several decades (e.g., Silva-Corvalán’s (1994) Los Angeles study),
this study treats a very new language contact situation in a Hispanic speech community
in Northeast Georgia (U.S.A.). Established in the late 1980s in Habersham County,
Georgia, and parts of two bordering counties (Banks and Stephens), this community
has flourished and is a good site to observe early language contact phenomena between
English and Spanish.
Codeswitching (CS), the alternation between two different languages,1 is a frequent
phenomenon of language contact. Convergence 2 is the use of grammatical patterns
from more than one language in the same sentence, a possible result from language
contact. Other possible outcomes of contact include language maintenance or language
shift. The current study examines the frequency of CS, convergence, and monolingual
speech with reference to the three stages of language change and language maintenance
and shift. Shift here does not necessarily mean that a speaker or speakers have shifted
from the community’s first to the second language so completely that they never utter
anything in any other language in any context, though it could mean that. It is more
realistic to assume that speakers who have shifted speak with most of their interlocutors,
especially peers, and in most contexts, almost entirely in what was at least at one time
the community’s second language.
This investigation examines CS and convergence across a community including
both genders and both children and adults. Analysis of informant speech samples
reveals that percentages of monolingual and codeswitched utterances pattern in relation to percentages of utterances showing convergence. Spanish begins to converge
toward English grammatical patterns when fewer than 70% of informants’ utterances
are monolingual Spanish. When fewer than 40% of their utterances are monolingual
Spanish, monolingual English is more frequently used than monolingual Spanish, and
many of their other English morpheme utterances show convergence with Spanish
grammatical patterns. These data lead to predictions about what new migrants might
do in their language patterns. Whether individual speakers will converge to English
(in their Spanish) and or shift to English can be predicted on the basis of the patterns
1
2
CS can also refer to the alternation between two different dialects of the same language, in addition to two different languages. Our focus, however, is on the alternation between two different
languages, and Myers-Scotton’s (1993 [1997], 2002) Matrix Language Frame model refers only
to the latter as well.
Convergence is used by some researchers to indicate an established grammatical change throughout
a community in one language by influence from contact with another language. The community
of this study is recent and convergence in the speech of some individuals has not had sufficient
time to diffuse throughout the entire community. Convergence in this study refers to the speech
patterns of individuals. Whether or not or how far these changes progress throughout the
community only time will tell.
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Thresholds leading to shift: Spanish/English …
209
of bilingual usage across a range of informants, with patterns ranging from complete
monolingualism in Spanish to complete monolingualism in English and varying degrees
and types of bilingualism in between.
The subjects studied are all members of the Hispanic community of the previously
mentioned Georgia counties. They are a coherent group to this extent: they are all from
Latin America, mostly Mexico; local schools, churches, and other social organizations
treat them for the most part as a unit and either refer to them as Hispanics or Mexicans;
interactions among members of this community are generally in Spanish, and for children
whose main language is already English, older members of their families still interact
with other members of the community in Spanish, even if their home language is mainly
Q’anjob’al Maya;3 shared physical, ethnic, cultural, and linguistic characteristics set
all members of the Hispanic community apart from any other non-Hispanic groups
in the area.
2 Codeswitching and convergence
This study focuses on the morphology and syntax of CS, specifically the points at which
switches are made within and between sentences, and the morphology and syntax of
convergence. From Myers-Scotton’s (1993 [1997], 2002) Matrix Language Frame (MLF)
model of CS it is assumed that every clause has a matrix language. The MLF model
is based on two major hierarchies, (1) the Matrix Language (ML) versus Embedded
Language (EL) hierarchy and (2) the system versus content morpheme hierarchy (MyersScotton, 1993 [1997], 2002). The first hierarchy assumes that every utterance has a ML
grammatical frame into which morphemes may be inserted or embedded, whether they
derive from one or more than one language. The ML frame is from one language or
is a composite of more than one language. The ML frame dictates word order. There
is therefore an inherent asymmetry between the two languages or the ML and the EL,
the ML taking precedence.
The notion of Matrix Language and asymmetry are also important attributes of
a bilingual community’s use of its two languages. Spanish is the ML of the majority
of the speech samples of the majority of the speakers in the community. English is the
ML, however, of the majority of the speech samples of some of the speakers, and in
time, depending on social factors, this minority of English ML speakers may indeed
grow, causing a shift from a community-wide Spanish ML to a community-wide English
ML. Thus the asymmetry between the ML and the EL in a single utterance is replicated
in the speech of an entire community in which the community ML is at first Spanish
and the community EL is English, and later the former EL, English, becomes the new
community ML.
This asymmetry between the two languages is further illustrated by the second
hierarchy which assumes that all morphemes are either content or system morphemes.
Content morphemes assign and receive thematic roles while system morphemes do not.
Content morphemes usually include nouns, verb stems, and descriptive adjectives, while
3
Q’anjob’al Maya is the home language of the Guatemalan informants in the study. These informants are from Huehuetenango, Guatemala, where Q’anjob’al Maya is spoken.
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
210
D. J. Smith
system morphemes usually include inflections and determiners. Single morphemes from
the EL embedded into the ML will be content morphemes and some types of system
morphemes. Under the 4-M model, discussed in Myers-Scotton (2002), the system
morphemes that must come from the ML only (under the System Morpheme Principle
introduced in Myers-Scotton (1993)) are called “‘outsider’ late system morphemes” (2002,
p.75).4 Distinguishing the different types of system morphemes and analysis of composite
ML frames is beyond the scope of this paper. Myers-Scotton (2002, pp.53 – 107) is an
excellent reference for these analyses. Example (1) illustrates the MLF model. Note that
the ML is Spanish and that content morphemes, not system morphemes, from English
are inserted into the ML Spanish frame.
(1)
An utterance of a 13-year-old Mexican male (Informant 33, cf. Table 1)
Maestro, y a ónde vamos a ir al SWIMMIN’ ónde ónde … ?
maestro y
a ónde vamos
a ir
teacher and to where we go[1PL/PRES] 5 Ø to go
al
swimmin’ ónde ónde
to the swimming where where
‘Teacher, and where are we going to go swimming where where … ?’
A structural change, including word order or borrowing or deletion of some
system morphemes, may indicate a composite ML frame and structural convergence
of one language toward the other, and/or ML turnover (Myers-Scotton, 2002) as a last
step. ML turnover is the replacement of one language as the ML with the other in a
bilingual context. This may be in the speech of one individual or of an entire community. Convergence is the process resulting in a composite ML. A composite ML is the
structure of an utterance which takes abstract grammatical structure, with surface
consequences, from more than one language. Convergence is defined as the use of
grammatical structure from at least two languages in the same utterance even in cases
in which all the morphemes are from only one of the languages (Myers-Scotton, 2002).
Convergence has therefore occurred if word order is altered and/or system morphemes
are deleted in a sentence of morphemes from one of the languages by analogy with the
other language. What is sometimes referred to in the literature as transfer or interference 6 can be explained in terms of structural convergence, as shown in examples (2 – 5)
from our data.
4
5
6
The term ‘outsider’ is used to denote this type of system morpheme (subject-verb agreement
morphemes, for example) because it participates “outside” its immediate constituent or maximal
projection in the formation of higher level constituents such as CPs (Myers-Scotton, 2002,
pp. 75 – 76, 78).
Abbreviations used in glossed examples: 1, 2, or 3 = 1st, 2nd, or 3rd person; S = singular; PL = plural;
PRES = present; PAST = past; IMPERF = imperfect verb; INF = infinitive; DAT = dative;
REFL = reflexive; FEM = feminine; MASC = masculine; Ø = no matching category in the other
language.
In a language contact situation transfer refers to grammatical structure transferred from one
language to another, and interference refers to the interference of one language’s grammatical
structure by influence from another.
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Thresholds leading to shift: Spanish/English …
211
Example (2) illustrates all Spanish morphemes with some abstract grammatical
structure from English. Spanish distinguishes gané (simple past ‘won’) from ganado
(past participle in the construction he ganado ‘I have won’). English uses won for both
the simple past and the past participle. The speaker in example (2) used the simple past,
incorrectly for standard Spanish, instead of the past participle, most likely because
there is no distinction between the two verb forms in English.
(2)
An utterance of an eight year old Peruvian male (Informant 39, cf. Table 1)
Yo he gané.
yo
h-e
gan-é
I[1S/PAST] have-1S/PRES win-1S/PAST
‘I have won.’
(standard native Spanish: Yo he ganado)
Example (3) is another example of all Spanish morphemes with abstract grammatical structure from English. The speaker in example (3) used yo ‘I’ with me gusta,
literally ‘to me it is pleasing’ in which the verb gusta assigns the experiencer the dative
case me in Spanish. Because the English equivalent is I like in which the verb like assigns
the experiencer nominative case, I, the speaker has apparently added the Spanish
nominative yo to the sentence.
(3)
An utterance from a nine year old Peruvian male (Informant 48, cf. Table 1)
YO ME GUSTA ESA CASA MAMI…
yo me
gust-a
esa casa mami
I to me[DAT] please-3S/PRES that house mommie
‘I like that house, mommie.’
(standard native Spanish: Me gusta esa casa mami)
Examples (4) and (5) illustrate all English morphemes with abstract grammatical
structure from Spanish. Spanish descriptive adjectives, certainly color words, follow
the nouns they modify. In English, descriptive adjectives precede the nouns they modify.
The speaker of example (4) has opted for the Spanish word order, while using all English
morphemes.
(4)
An utterance from an 11-year-old Mexican female (Informant 51, cf. Table 1)
SEE, I PUT SOME DOTS RED.
(standard native English: See, I put some red dots)
(Spanish: círculos rojos, literally dots red ‘red dots’)
In example (5) the speaker also uses Spanish word order and even changes the
surface morpheme from not to no because this more closely matches Spanish word
order and morphology, hence, I no can see rather than the standard English I cannot
see or I can’t see.
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
212
(5)
D. J. Smith
An utterance from a 10-year-old Honduran female (Informant 26, cf. Table 1)
I NO CAN SEE.
(standard native English: I can’t see)
(Spanish: no puedo, literally no can I ‘I can’t’)
The two types of convergence (examples (2 – 3), Spanish morphemes with some
English grammatical structure; examples (4 – 5), English morphemes with some Spanish
grammatical structure), are essentially opposites of each other. A Spanish morpheme
string with a composite ML from Spanish and English is Spanish converging toward
English. An English morpheme string with a composite ML from Spanish and English
is English converging toward Spanish. Convergence does not imply categorically that
one language will eventually turn completely into the other but only that one language
is influenced grammatically by the other.
3 Simplification or not?
One could argue that yo he gané (example (2)) is not convergence of Spanish and English
grammar, but merely an example of child language. I contend, however, that this example
illustrates Spanish /English grammatical convergence because of the following. The
informant, age eight, who said the utterance, also said several similar utterances; his
older brother and two other boys (not of the same national origin or family and not in
the data corpus proper), 9 – 10 years old, also said similar utterances. All four of these
children were more relatively isolated from the Hispanic community at large than any
of the other informants in our study. All four exhibited very similar language patterns,
showing disregard for morphosyntactic distinctions between English and Spanish (e.g.,
English won = Spanish gané / ganado). These patterns were very different from those of
all other children informants, ages eight and younger, who demonstrated utterances
that conformed more closely to standard Spanish morphosyntactic patterns.
The grammatical convergence shown in examples (2 – 5) cannot be brushed aside as
instances of simplification or of child language. All the children who uttered examples
(2 – 5) are old enough (ages 8 – 11) to be past the stages at which children learning Spanish
or English as their first language would utter these sentences. Spanish is the main home
language of the informants uttering examples (2 – 3), but English has a very strong influence because it is the language used all day in school and sometimes with friends, thus
apparently imparting to the speakers’ abstract grammar some structures analogous to
those of English. A manifestation of this is verb form contrasts made in Spanish but not
in English as in example (2), in which the Spanish simple past and the past participle
fail to contrast, by analogy with English. The structures which some may say could be
accounted for by simplification, if due to simplification only, strangely conform to the
structure of the other language which is known to be used extensively at school and
with friends. Spanish is the dominant and home language of the informants uttering
examples (4 – 5), and Spanish word order instead of English word order is used in the
all English morpheme sentences of examples (4 – 5). Therefore simplification, without
reference to influence from Spanish in contact with English, does not account well for
the resulting structures we have termed convergence.
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Thresholds leading to shift: Spanish/English …
213
4 Community language data gathering procedures
Audio and video/audio recorded data were collected from a total of 56 speakers (the
informants or subjects of the study): 26 adults (12 males and 14 females) in homes, in
church, and in classes of English as a second language; and 30 children (16 males and 14
females) in school, home, church, and recreational settings. A video/audio camera was
used when possible but audio recorders were less conspicuous and easier to implement;
therefore, most of the data were collected by audio recordings.
The investigator of this study was able to gain access to the Hispanic community
because he was a teacher of English as a second language for adults in the community
and a bilingual instructor in summer sessions for Hispanic migrant children. The
investigator was present during some of the recording sessions. Even when he was
present at recording sessions, his presence was ignored because he was no stranger to
the interactants and they were very accustomed to him and his recording equipment.
Some of his Hispanic friends in the community had better access than he to some of the
subjects; therefore, they were given charge of the recording equipment in his absence.
The recordings were made in natural conversational situations between informants
and their interlocutors. Most of the data were collected in interactions between peers
because the focus of the study is on peer group interaction within the speech community.
Since the recorded data were naturally occurring, each subject was not recorded for
a fixed amount of time but rather for the amount of time the conversation took place,
ranging from approximately 10 – 20 mins per conversation. Varying amounts of time
for different informants were very common because the conversations were as informal
and natural as possible.
Because varying amounts of data were collected from each informant, percentages
per informant of each type of language identified in the data were used to compare
language type variation among informants. Language types identified are outlined
in the following section. Each informant’s language type percentages are presented
and discussed in subsequent sections. Thus for each informant a percentage of each
language type (e.g., the number of tokens of all Spanish with no codeswitching or
convergence) was calculated based upon the total number of all language type tokens
in the informant’s language sample. What counts as a token of each language type is
also discussed in the following section.
5 Data analysis
Patterns of CS and convergence, compared with monolingual Spanish and English turns
for each informant in the transcribed data, were the objects of analysis. Each monolingual Spanish turn that had no codeswitching or convergence was counted as a token
of monolingual Spanish. Each monolingual English turn that had no codeswitching or
convergence was counted as a token of monolingual English. Most turns in the data were
either Spanish or monolingual turns without codeswitching or convergence. Most turns
were short, sentence length turns. Paragraph length turns were divided into sentences
and each sentence was counted as a token of that language type.
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
214
D. J. Smith
Following are explanations and labels for ease of reference for each language
pattern found in the data, along with each pattern’s number of tokens and percentage
of the entire data corpus. Turns/sentences of monolingual Spanish (S) with no CS or
convergence comprise the majority of the data (61.6% of the entire data corpus; 2111
tokens). The second largest type category is monolingual English (E) with no CS or
convergence (18.2% of the entire data corpus; 623 tokens).
The remaining language types are four types of CS 7 and the two convergence types
already discussed. The four types of CS are: (1) Spanish with single English lexeme
insertions or English inserted into a Spanish ML, E > Sinsert (4.7% of the entire data
corpus; 160 tokens); (2) English with single Spanish lexeme insertions or Spanish inserted
into an English ML, S > Einsert (0.4% of the entire data corpus; 14 tokens); 8 (3) Spanish
and English intrasentential CS or multiword strings of both Spanish and English inside
each sentence, SEintra (2.4% of the entire data corpus; 82 tokens); (4) Spanish and
English intersentential CS or Spanish and English switches made at sentence boundaries, SEinter (1.9% of the entire data corpus; 66 tokens). The two convergence types
are: (1) Spanish morpheme strings with a composite ML (convergence) from Spanish
and English or Spanish converging toward English, S > Econv (2.2% of the entire data
corpus; 76 tokens); (2) English morpheme strings with a composite ML (convergence)
from Spanish and English or English converging toward Spanish, E > Sconv (1.8% of
the entire data corpus; 63 tokens).9
Each instance of switching between sentences within a turn was counted as a token
of SEinter. Switches between turns were not part of the categorization. Only switches
within a turn were considered in the categorization of CS types, since language types
per informant are the focus of the study, not an analysis of conversation structure. Each
instance of a multiword string of one language embedded in a turn of the other language
7
8
9
Spanish with single English lexeme insertions (E > Sinsert) is a turn or segment of only Spanish
morphemes and grammatical structure, with the exception of one English word or morpheme
inserted in a grammatical slot that would be occupied by a Spanish word or morpheme in an all
Spanish (S) turn/segment. Likewise, English with single Spanish lexeme insertions (S > Einsert)
is a turn or segment of all English morphemes and grammatical structure with the exception of
one Spanish word or morpheme inserted in a grammatical slot that would be occupied by an
English word or morpheme in an all English (E) segment. E > Sinsert and S > Einsert are both
examples of CS, as opposed to convergence. The other two CS types are not exact opposites
like E > Sinsert and S > Einsert, but are similar because both contain instances of multiword
islands (Myers-Scotton, 1993 [1997]) of one language either embedded in or alternating with
word strings of the other language. Intersentential English/Spanish CS (SEinter) is a switch at
sentence boundaries. Intrasentential English/Spanish CS (SEintra) is an instance of sentenceinternal embedding of a multiword string of one language into the other or sentence-internal
code / language alternation.
Neither established borrowings nor proper nouns were counted as qualifying a turn/sentence to
be classified as either E > Sinsert or S > Einsert (singly-occurring morphemes or words inserted
from one language into a turn/sentence of the other language).
The total of all the language type percentages for the entire data corpus is 93.2% (3195 tokens).
The remaining 6.8% (230 tokens) are turns/sentences that the investigator was unable to categorize according to language type due to lack of clarity in some parts of the tapes transcribed
(“uncertain instances,” cf. endnotes 10 and 11). For the data analysis, only turns and sentences
which were clearly identifiable as one of the language types in the study were counted among
those percentages for each language type.
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Thresholds leading to shift: Spanish/English …
215
was counted as a token of SEintra. Each single word embedded in a turn of the other
language was counted as a token of either E > Sinsert or S > Einsert.
Each turn with an instance of convergence was counted as a token of either S > Econv
or E > Sconv. If a turn was multisentence length, and another sentence had an instance of
convergence, that sentence was counted as another token of convergence, either S > Econv
or E > Sconv. Otherwise, the additional sentences in a turn were counted as monolingual
S or E tokens or as one of the codeswitching tokens (E > Sinsert, S > Einsert, SEinter,
SEintra), depending on the type of language occurring in each additional sentence.
Examples (6 – 15) show instances of each pattern found in the data, also exemplifying how tokens of each language type were counted within turns. As illustrated in
examples (13) and (15), a single turn, even a single sentence, may show instances of more
than one language type. In example (13) there is an instance of convergence (S > Econv)
and an instance of codeswitching (E > Sinsert). In example (15) a single English word that
is inserted at the beginning of the Spanish frame sentence (an instance of E > Sinsert),
and a multiword phrase, check one out, is embedded later at the end of the sentence (an
instance of SEintra) after an interval of several Spanish words.
Examples (6 – 15) Turns from several informants categorized by language type.
(6)
One instance of S because all the morphemes and grammatical structure are
Spanish.
Porque no traigo llave.
(Informant 17, cf. Table 1)
porque no traig-o
llave
because no bring–1S/PRES key
‘Because I haven’t brought (didn’t bring) a key.’
(7)
One instance of E because all the morphemes and grammatical structure are
English.
I FORGOT HER NAME.
(Informant 51, cf. Table 1)
(8)
One instance of E > Sinsert, an English morpheme swimmin’ inserted into a
Spanish sentence.
Maestro, y a ónde vamos a ir al SWIMMIN’ ónde ónde … ?
(Informant 33, cf. Table 1)
maestro y
a ónde vamos
a ir
teacher and to where we go[1PL/PRES] Ø to go
al
swimmin’ ónde ónde
to the swimming where where
‘Teacher, and where are we going to go swimming where where … ?’
(9)
One instance of S > Einsert, a Spanish morpheme como inserted into an
English sentence.
I DON’T WANT THOSE (NO’S?/NOSE?)* como THREE HORNS
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
216
D. J. Smith
(Informant 51, cf. Table 1)
*[uncertain which word was uttered, but the sound combinations more closely
approximate English no’s or nose than any Spanish word]
I don’t want those (no’s?/nose?) como three horns
I don’t want those (no’s?/nose?) like three horns
‘I don’t want those (no’s?/nose?) like three horns’ [in reference to three-horned
dinosaurs while playing with toy dinosaurs]
(10) One instance of SEintra, Spanish and English intrasentential CS with multiword strings of both Spanish and English inside a sentence.
Es como, como, es como, UH CHICKEN NUGGETS.
(Informant 46, cf. Table 1)
es como, como, es como, uh chicken nuggets
it is like, like, it is like, uh chicken nuggets
‘It’s like, like, it’s like, uh chicken nuggets.’
(11) One instance of SEinter, Spanish and English intersentential CS with a Spanish
to English switch at the sentence boundary; and one instance of E > Sconv [bold],
a change in English word order by influence from Spanish.
¿Vamos a sentarnos allá? ¡Calor! IS GOOD YOUR FOOD?
(Informant 12, cf. Table 1)
vamos a sentar nos
allá Calor Is good your food
we go Ø to seat us[REFL] there heat Is good your food
‘Are we going to sit down there? It’s hot! Is your food good?’
(12) Two instances of SEintra, Spanish and English intrasentential CS with multiword
strings of both Spanish and English inside a sentence [an insertion of trace dinosaurs
into each of two Spanish sentences]; and one uncertain instance10 of S > Econv
[bold] because in Spanish a ‘to’ is not used between quiere and a following verb
infinitive, but may be from influence of its English equivalent to, which is required
in the English equivalent wants to trace dinosaurs [This was deemed an uncertain
instance of S > Econv because the investigator was unsure that it was not a false
start by the speaker or perhaps a filler equivalent to English uh.].
¿Quién quiere a TRACE DINOSAURS.? ¿Quién quiere hacer TRACE DINOSAURS.?
(Informant 42, cf. Table 1)
quién quier-e
a
trace dinosaurs?
who want–3S/PRES to
trace dinousaurs
quién quier-e
hacer trace dinosaurs
who want–3S/PRES to do trace dinousaurs
‘Who wants to trace dinosaurs? Who wants to trace dinosaurs?’
10
An “uncertain instance” of a language type was indicated in the transcript when the investigator
was not certain that an instance of that type was made, due to false starts and so forth. Only
certain instances were counted in the data analysis (cf. footnotes 9 and 11).
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Thresholds leading to shift: Spanish/English …
217
(13) One instance of S > Econv [bold] because Spanish requires ellos[3PL] dijeron[3PL]
instead of ellos[3PL] dijo[3S], a possible influence from English, which makes no
distinction, unlike Spanish, between person or number in past tense verbs; and
one instance of E > Sinsert, an English morpheme but inserted into a Spanish
sentence.
… Cuando yo me serví todo ellos dijo, BUT, ¿dónde está el pescado? …
(Informant 38, cf. Table 1)
cuando yo me
serv-í
todo ellos dij-o
when I me[REFL] serve–1S/PAST all they say–3S/PAST
but ¿dónde est-á
el pescado
but where be–3S/PRES the fish
‘When I served myself everything they said, but, where is the fish?’
(14) One instance of E > Sconv [bold], probable influence from Spanish, because English
know how to play is translated in Spanish sabe jugar [sabe = know–3S/PRES ‘she
knows’; jugar = play-INF ‘to play’], and know play more closely approximates
Spanish morpho-syntax by omitting English how, since there is no equivalent
morpheme for how in the Spanish sabe jugar.
SHE DON’T KNOW PLAY.
(Informant 42, cf. Table 1)
‘She don’t /doesn’t know how to play.’ [Use of don’t instead of doesn’t is a
very common dialectal variation in English and therefore does not count as
E > Sconv.]
(15) One instance of E > Sinsert, an English morpheme that inserted into a Spanish
sentence; and one instance of SEintra, Spanish and English intrasentential CS
with multiword strings of both Spanish and English inside a sentence.
THAT, que, que si, que si (garbled Spanish) que no podía CHECK ONE OUT.
(Informant 45, cf. Table 1)
that que que si que si (garbled Spanish)
that that that if that if (???)
que no pod-ía
check one out
that no can–3S/PAST/IMPERF
‘That, that, that if, that if (garbled Spanish) that he/she couldn’t check one out.’
5.1
Distribution of the eight language pattern types by informant
Number of tokens along with percentages 11 of each pattern type for each informant
were noted. These percentages are shown for each informant in Table 1. Table 1 is
11
Uncertain instances were counted in the percentages (cf. endnotes 9 and 10), but since uncertain
instances were not part of the data analysis, these uncertain instance percentages are not included
in the percentages listed in Table 1. Therefore, all percentages listed for each informant do not
always total 100%.
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
218
D. J. Smith
an examination of how all eight types by percentage of usage for each informant are
distributed throughout the databased on frequency of all Spanish (type S) usage and
is a rank ordering, a modified version of an implicational scale based on Milroy and
Wei (1995, p. 143), Gal (1979), and Walters (1995).
The data in Table 1 were ordered by this three step process: (1) each informant’s
percentages for each language type were listed horizontally on a single row, one row
for each informant; (2) the language type columns were ordered from left to right by
total number of tokens from largest to smallest in the data corpus as a whole, from the
type with the largest number of tokens (type S) on the left to the type with the smallest
number of tokens (type S > Einsert) on the right; (3) the S type (monolingual Spanish)
was ranked from greatest percentage (at the top) to lowest percentage (at the bottom)
by informant. This ordering results in the informants with the highest percentage of S
being listed at the top, with gradations downward by percentage of S per informant, to
the informants with the lowest percentage of S (0%) at the bottom. Each informant’s
horizontal line of language type percentages falls according to the order of S percentage,
listed from 100% at the top gradually decreasing to the 0% S at the bottom. This three
step ranking of the data yields the rank ordering presented in Table 1. Informants were
numbered 1 – 56 only after the three step ordering was made. A horizontal row below
each of the language type headings presents the percentage of usage per language type
for one informant. A blank space under a language type indicates a zero percentage for
that language type on the line for that informant. Thus, in Table 1, Informant 1 shows
100% S and 0% for all the other language types, and Informant 56 uses 100% E and 0%
of all the other language types.
From the distribution in Table 1 it is clear which language types are used most and
which are used least, monolingual Spanish (S) being used the most and single morpheme
inserts into English MLs (S > Einsert) being used the least. Informants who use neither
the most nor the least S, but rather those in the middle of the S usage percentages, use
more S > Econv or more Spanish influenced by English grammatical patterns.
Table 1 shows that only those informants who use lower percentages of S are those
who use S > Einsert. Thus, in general, lexemes from Spanish are less frequently inserted
into MLs of English than the reverse. More specifically, only informants among those
who use the least Spanish insert single lexemes of Spanish into MLs of English. Type
E > Sinsert is more generally distributed throughout the data, correlating less with type
S usage than the other CS and convergence types. This more general distribution of
E > Sinsert in Table 1 illustrates the fact that E > Sinsert is the language mixing type most
frequently found throughout the data in general, even among those informants who use
the most S. One can argue that single morpheme insertion is the CS type that requires the
least amount of proficiency in a second language (Myers-Scotton, 1993, p.71 [fn. 6]).12
12
In addition, as shown by the data here and as supported by Gal’s (1979) study, single lexemes
from the language of greater prestige (English) are inserted more frequently into the ML of
lesser prestige than vice versa.
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Thresholds leading to shift: Spanish/English …
219
Table 1
Stage 3
Stage 2
Stage 1
Rank ordering of language types by informant and listed in order from 100% to 0% of type S (monolingual
Spanish) usage
Informant
%S
%E
%E>Sinsert
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
100
100
100
100
96
95
94
94
92
90
89
88
87
86
83
82
82
82
81
80
80
78
76
72
72
1
1
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
69
67
66
65
63
63
62
61
60
57
55
50
47
46
43
43
40
39
7
10
6
6
2
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
37
37
34
30
30
29
25
24
21
13
1
13
18
43
30
50
45
50
42
51
13
79
53
100
%SEintra
%S>Econv
%SEinter
%E>Sconv
%S>Einsert
5
4
2
2
2
2
4
5
2
2
13
1
10
2
5
16
1
3
12
10
4
2
1
2
4
1
2
7
9
7
8
3
1
3
4
1
3
2
4
1
1
3
3
9
13
1
4
1
7
10
6
3
6
10
11
1
2
2
2
18
14
12
18
15
5
25
27
20
43
18
33
45
3
14
7
5
25
8
1
2
2
1
18
2
6
11
11
15
4
33
2
2
25
1
2
5
2
6
5
6
8
6
10
7
2
3
2
6
20
11
1
1
10
1
7
4
5
2
20
2
1
20
3
3
6
2
13
3
1
2
2
2
10
1
2
14
2
5
5
6
2
1
1
2
6
6
2
1
3
10
2
1
1
17
33
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
220
D. J. Smith
5.2
The data distribution and apparent stages of change in language shift
Table 1 also shows apparent stages in the shift from Spanish to English (Smith, 2001)13
Three stages are apparent:
• (Stage 1) Mostly monolingual Spanish with some CS.
• (Stage 2) More CS; convergence begins; Spanish sentences are influenced by
English, and English sentences are influenced by Spanish.
• (Stage 3) CS continues; there is much less Spanish influenced by English; yet there
is more English influenced by Spanish as English utterances begin to
dominate.
In Stage 1 there is mostly monolingual Spanish with some CS. Informants whose
language is 70% or more monolingual Spanish also use some CS, but very little convergence. For several informants whose monolingual Spanish is below 70%, however,
convergence is observed much more frequently. Therefore the cut-off point for this stage
is around 70% monolingual Spanish utterances. At this point the pattern changes to
those patterns evident in Stage 2.
In Stage 2 there are larger frequencies of CS. Spanish utterances influenced by
English and English utterances influenced by Spanish are observed more frequently.
Another cut-off point is apparent at around 40% monolingual Spanish utterances where
another change takes place, initiating Stage 3.
In Stage 3, for informants with the lowest number of monolingual Spanish utterances
and the highest number of English utterances, their English continues to be influenced
by grammatical structure from Spanish as in Stage 2. CS continues, but the majority of
their utterances are English along with English influenced by Spanish. So many of their
utterances are now English that Spanish influenced by English stops in this stage.
In Stage 1 most utterances are monolingual Spanish and are rarely influenced
by English grammatical structure. For the 13 informants in Stage 3 most utterances
are monolingual English (an average of 45%), with an average of 6% to 7% of their all
English morpheme utterances influenced by Spanish grammatical structure (E > Sconv),
as compared to less than 3% E > Sconv in Stage 2 and less than 1% E > Sconv in Stage 1.
With an average of only 22% monolingual Spanish utterances in Stage 3, the remaining
utterances in Stage 3 are mostly CS, and only a fraction of 1% on average are Spanish
influenced by English grammatical structure (S > Econv). In the three stages, CS usually
precedes14 and continues with both kinds of convergence (S > Econv and E > Sconv).
First language (L1) to second language (L2) convergence stops at a point, and L2 to
13
14
I thank Carol Myers-Scotton and Janice Jake (2001) for their insights regarding possible shift
and ML turnover patterns in the data.
Informants 7 and 11 in Table 1 show that CS does not necessarily always precede convergence,
but the rarity of this compared to the majority of the data may be the result of the limited sample
of data. Further collection of data from these informants could likely show more CS in their
speech. On the other hand, the speech of some informants, like these two informants, may have
already changed to the point that CS is less a phenomenon in their speech than before, indicating
that their speech has already begun converging, having already passed through the CS stage.
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Thresholds leading to shift: Spanish/English …
221
L1 convergence continues in the speech of heavy L2 users. This pattern demonstrates
the asymmetrical relation of L1 to L2. L1 is the community ML, Spanish; L2 is the
community EL, English. L1 is more resistant to change than L2 by the end of Stage 3.
There are two apparent thresholds of change:
• (1) At around 70% monolingual Spanish utterances.
• (2) At around 40% monolingual Spanish utterances.
Therefore, it seems as if one can predict that, when the L1 accounts for fewer
than 70% of many speakers’ utterances, convergence will likely become a major force.
Informants who converge also usually codeswitch significantly. For example, in Stage 2,
where S > Econv is highest, an informant whose speech sample is 10% S > Econv also
has 25% E > Sinsert, the second highest percentage of E > Sinsert of any informant in
the data. Only three informants in the data had higher percentages of S > Econv.
When fewer than 40% of a speaker’s utterances are L1 (in this study, Spanish, the
old ML) then the pattern changes again. In Stage 3 there is more English spoken than
in the other two stages. In Stage 3 English is clearly the new ML for at least six speakers
whose utterances are over 50% English. And for 19 speakers, all of those in Stage 3 and
six in Stage 2, Spanish monolingual utterances have already ceased being the majority
language type used. English in Stage 3, however, is heavily influenced by Spanish grammatical structure. CS continues, but there is very little Spanish influenced by English. The
community ML, however, has not completely shifted from Spanish, L1, to English, L2.
A 12-year-old male (Informant 56 in Table 1) is the only speaker who used only
monolingual English in our data. Since he was not observed in every language use
context, we cannot categorically say that he uses monolingual English exclusively; in
other words we cannot claim that he has shifted so completely to English that he never
uses anything but English with anyone in any context. Q’anjob’al Maya is known to be
the language spoken at home by his mother, but the investigator was with him on several
occasions and for long periods of time as his summer school instructor, including during
recreation times with his peers. In these nonhome observed contexts the great majority
of his peers used Spanish, and some of these peers’ home language is also Q’anjob’al
Maya; but he was never observed by the investigator to use anything but monolingual
English. His Q’anjob’al peers (with origins in Guatemala, like Informant 56) did not
use Q’anjob’al Maya in the observed summer school and recreation contexts either, but
instead used a combination of Spanish and English. We can therefore conclude that, at
least with peers and likely with a large number of interlocutors in similar contexts, if not
most interlocutors, Informant 56 has shifted almost entirely to English. Since Q’anjob’al
Maya is most likely the language he uses at home, we are forced to conclude that the
shift is not likely a complete and total shift to English. It is safe to assume, however, that
English, and certainly not Spanish, is his dominant language. So by shift we mean that
a speaker uses the community’s second language as his or her dominant language; we
do not mean that he or she uses that language to the total exclusion of any other.
Whether or not a complete shift to English (or ML turnover) by the majority of
the community will occur depends on future social conditions. Following are several
social factors associated with the patterns in the three stages.
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
222
D. J. Smith
5.3
Social factors associated with the three stage linguistic patterns
The tables in Appendices A, B, and C list informant social factors and reported language
use and preference, along with the language types by informant exactly in the same order
as in Table 1. The social factors and reported language use and preference were taken
from surveys administered to the informants. These surveys are given in Appendix D.
The social factors considered are as follows: sex (gender), age, country of origin, years
in the U.S., years of school in the country of origin, years of school in the U.S., employment or children’s parents’ employment. Also considered are informants’ reports of
the following: number of friends who speak mostly English, language spoken mostly
at home, language spoken at mealtime with family, language of preference, language
spoken mostly at school /college or work, language spoken mostly during breaks at
school/college or work, and language spoken mostly with friends.
The following analysis of the social factors compares informants 1 – 28 (the top
half of Table 1) to informants 29 – 56 (the bottom half of Table 1) so that the number
of informants in each group are exactly equal for ease of comparison. The top half
(informants 1 – 28) of the rank ordering (in Table 1 and in Appendices A1, B1, and C1)
coincides roughly with Stage 1. The bottom half (informants 29 – 56) of the rank ordering
(in Table 1 and in Appendices A2, B2, and C2) coincides roughly with Stages 2 and 3.
In Stages 2 and 3 (the bottom half of the rank ordering) there is far more English, CS,
and convergence than in Stage 1 (the top half of the rank ordering).
The informants’ ages divide them clearly into two age groups, children and adults.
There are 30 children informants (14 females and 16 males) and 26 adult informants (14
females and 12 males). The children’s ages range from 7 – 13 years old, and the adults’
ages range from 20 – 65 years old. Five adults are above 40 years of age: 41, 43, 47, 59,
and 65 years old. The remaining 21 adults range in age from 20 – 39 years old. See
Appendices A1 and A2 for the age of each informant. The following uses of “young”
and “younger” refer to the children informants as a group, not to younger children
versus older children; “old” and “older” refer to the adult informants as a group, not
to older adults versus younger adults.
Language types used pattern according to informants’ ages. There are far more
older than younger informants in the top half of the rank ordering. There are 20 older
to 8 younger informants in the top half and 6 older to 22 younger informants in the
bottom half. English, CS, and convergence are much more frequent in the bottom half
and are therefore more associated with younger age than with older age. This association
is probably most related to higher exposure of younger informants to English in school.
Amount of schooling is further discussed in a following paragraph.
Language types used also pattern according to gender. Males outnumber females
in the top half of the rank ordering by only 15 to 13, and females outnumber males by
only 15 to 13 in the bottom half. The differences between males and females are not
as great, therefore, as between older and younger informants of either gender. When
gender and age are considered together, however, the following pattern is noted: (1)
the greatest amount of S used by any younger female in the data is 81%; at least some
members of all the other gender/age groups use higher than 81% S; (2) the least amount
of S usage for any older male is 63%; at least some members of all the other gender/age
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Thresholds leading to shift: Spanish/English …
223
groups use less than 63% S. The 70% threshold, the percentage of S in the rank ordering
where most of the CS and convergence begins, falls about midway between these two
extremes (younger females’ 81% S upper limit and older males’ 63% S lower limit).
Therefore, female gender and especially younger age are both more heavily associated
with increased CS, convergence, and monolingual English than are male gender and
older age.
Socioeconomic level also patterns in relation to language types used. There are
fewer adults in the bottom half of the rank ordering. A larger percentage of them,
however, have higher socioeconomic level jobs than those in the top half. All children
with parents in the higher socioeconomic levels (teacher, pastor) are in the bottom half
of the ranking. Though these parents in higher socioeconomic levels are few, there are
none in the top half. Higher socioeconomic levels are therefore associated with more
English, CS, and convergence.
Amount of education and time spent in the U.S. are related to language types used.
It is not surprising that those in the top half have had more schooling in their country
of origin than those in the bottom half, but more surprising is that those in the bottom
half have been in the U.S. longer than those in the top half by a slight margin (7 yrs.
to 5.7 yrs. on average per informant), even though these informants are younger. Also,
informants in the bottom half report having been in U.S. schools more years than those
in the top half. Therefore, more schooling in the country of origin tends to lead to more
use of monolingual Spanish, and more time spent in the U.S. and more schooling in
U.S. schools are associated with more English, CS, and convergence. From this one
can tentatively conclude that length of stay and amount of schooling in the U.S. have
a very important influence on language use.
The number of English-speaking friends is associated with language types used.
Informants in the top half have fewer numbers of friends who speak mostly English but
not by a large margin. Eleven informants in the top half and 12 informants in the bottom
half report having 10 or more friends who speak mostly English. Four informants in
the top half and one informant in the bottom half report having no friends who speak
mostly English. This difference, though not as great as might be expected, shows that
there is some association between using more English, CS, and convergence and having
more English-speaking friends.
Reported English use and preference are related to language types used. For
language spoken mostly at home, language spoken at mealtime with family, language
of preference, language spoken mostly at school /college or work, language spoken
mostly during breaks at school /college or work, and language spoken mostly with
friends, there is more English reported by the informants in the bottom half and more
Spanish reported by the informants in the top half. Thus more reported English use and
preference are associated with more use of English, CS, and convergence in the data for
those informants in the bottom half of the rank ordering.
National origin together with age is associated with language types used. All the
non-Mexican informants above the 70% threshold are older, but there are both younger
and older Mexicans above the 70% threshold. The 70% threshold is very close to the
1 – 28 / 29 – 56 division separating the top and bottom halves. Older Mexicans are concentrated in the top half, with younger Mexicans spread in both halves. On the other hand,
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
224
D. J. Smith
younger non-Mexicans are concentrated in the bottom half with older non-Mexicans
spread in both halves. Mexicans as a group codeswitch more than non-Mexicans, but
most CS among Mexicans is done by younger Mexicans. Younger non-Mexicans also
codeswitch and converge but not to the exclusion of older non-Mexicans, as is almost the
case with younger versus older Mexicans. Among non-Mexicans, older South Americans
codeswitch and converge more than either older Mexicans or older Central Americans or
Caribbeans. Therefore, CS and convergence together are more associated with younger
Mexicans and younger non-Mexicans and their higher levels of U.S. schooling, and with
older South Americans and their higher socioeconomic levels.
Stage 1 contrasts statistically with Stages 2 and 3. For E > Sinsert, SEintra, and
SEinter, all the CS types except for S > Einsert — differences between informants 1 – 28
(the top half of the rank ordering) and informants 29 – 56 (the bottom half of the rank
ordering) are statistically significant at the .05 level, as shown in Table 2. The differences
between the top and bottom halves for the two convergence types are not statistically significant, but the significant differences in CS usage are associated with more
convergence also found in the bottom half, or Stages 2 and 3. As a group, compared
to informants in the top half of the rank ordering, informants in the bottom half tend
to be younger and to have been in U.S. schools longer, or they tend to be non-Mexican
with more socioeconomic status. These social factors and the other social factors noted
above, concentrated in the bottom half of the rank ordering (stages 2 and 3), are therefore
associated with statistically significant higher levels of CS and with corresponding
higher levels of convergence.
Table 2
p values for the statistical tests of difference for each CS and convergence type between the top half
(Informants 1-28) and the bottom half (Informants 29-56) of the rank ordering by S% in Table 1 and
Appendices A – C.
Test: t-Test: Two-sample assuming unequal variances
E>Sinsert S>Einsert SEinter
SEintra
S>Econv E>Sconv
Informants 1-28 / 29-56 *0.011056 0.066791 *0.00195 *0.002448 0.187373 0.085736
p values are the values for “P( T< = t) two-tail ”
* significant differences at the .05 level
The following examples15 illustrate how the social factors and reported language
use are associated with language production from the data. From Stage 1 in Table 1,
Informant 1 is an adult Mexican male. As shown in example (16) his utterances were
100% S. There are more older informants who are also male and Mexican in Stage 1
as compared to more younger informants who are also female and non-Mexican in
Stages 2 and 3.
15
Conversation structure and discourse analysis are not the subject of this study. Space considerations also prohibit conversation contextualization of each utterance, since many informants’
utterances are found in more than one conversation or scattered widely throughout a conversation. The focus of this study is the language type of each utterance and the percentage of each
informant’s total utterances represented by each language type, as shown in Table 1. Therefore,
sample utterances are given without their full conversation context.
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Thresholds leading to shift: Spanish/English …
225
(16) Sample turns from a 38-year-old Mexican male in Stage 1 (Informant 1 from Table 1)
También en este país se le cambia uno el nombre a veces. (S)
‘Also in this country one’s name is changed sometimes.’
bien entrevistado (S)
‘well interviewed’
(proper name) me dijo. (S)
‘(proper name) told me.’
el estado es Zacatecas, pero la provincia, ¿qué es? (S)
‘the state is Zacatecas, but the province, what is it?’
Example (17) illustrates that Informant 23, another adult Mexican male, still in
Stage 1 but closer to Stage 2, has begun to insert English into his Spanish MLs and
occasionally, but rarely, even used complete English sentences. His data sample reveals
that he used 76% S, 3% E, and 7% E > Sinsert.
(17) Sample turns from a 27-year-old Mexican male in Stage 1
(Informant 23 from Table 1)
Las hubieran traído a la tienda. (S)
‘They would have brought them to the store.’
Ahora vamos a ir más a media noche. (S)
‘Now we’re going to go more at midnight.’
COME ON, BABY. (E)
Quieres caldito MISTER? (E > Sinsert)
‘Do you want soup, mister?’
Early into Stage 2, Informant 28, a 10-year-old female from Guatemala (example
(18)), used more language types influenced by English, with fewer monolingual Spanish
turns than used by any informant in Stage 1. She has also begun to converge. Her
language sample reveals 66% S, 6% E, 6% E > Sinsert, 13% S > Econv, and 6% E > Sconv.
In Stages 2 and 3 there are more informants, like Informant 28, who are younger and
also female and non-Mexican, than are in Stage 1.
(18) Sample turns from a 10-year-old female Guatemalan in Stage 2
(Informant 28 from Table 1)
Esto sí que está bien fácil. (S)
‘This really is very easy.’
ME TOO (E)
(Me too is understood to mean I want one too (with the verb understood), in
reference to a certain color of pencil or crayon; me too is counted as a separate
sentence because it is followed by another complete sentence of another language
type, though within the same turn.)
I DON’T HAVE IT THAT ONE. (E > Sconv)
(standard native English: I don’t have that one)
(Spanish: No lo tengo ese)
No it I have that one
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
226
D. J. Smith
Yo no quiero entrar en la primero. (S > Econv)
Yo no quiero entrar en la
primer-o
I no I want to enter in the[FEM/S] first-MASC/S
(feminine definite article la used with masculine noun primero)
‘I don’t want to go into the first one.’
(proper name) quiere llevar los mías. (S > Econv)
(proper name) quiere llevar
los
mí-as
(proper name) wants to carry
the[MASC/PL] mine-FEM/PL
(masculine definite article los used with feminine pronoun mías)
‘(proper name) wants to carry mine.’
HEY, ay (garbled Spanish) (Spanish name) quiere… (E > Sinsert)
‘Hey, oh, (garbled Spanish) (Spanish name) wants …’
Example (19) is a sample of utterances of Informant 47, an adult female from Peru.
By Stage 3 she uses as much monolingual English as monolingual Spanish (30%S, 30%E)
with CS continuing (6% E > Sinsert, 10% SEintra, 2% SEinter, 2% S > Einsert) from
Stages 1 and 2 and a higher percentage than anyone from Stages 1 or 2 of English with
abstract grammatical structure from Spanish (14% E > Sconv). Informant 47 is typical of
larger numbers in Stages 2 and 3, as compared to Stage 1, of informants who are either
female, or younger, or who have employment or whose parents are employed in higher
socioeconomic level positions. Such positions, including teachers, teaching assistants,
and college or graduate students, require interaction in English in the dominant Englishspeaking society. Informant 47, for example, earned her Masters degree at an American
college and is a public school teacher.
(19) Sample utterances from a 37-year-old Peruvian female in Stage 3
(Informant 47 from Table 1)
Entonces, pasé y después me me empezaron allí a hablar (S)
‘Then, I passed by and afterwards they began to talk to me to me there.’
WELL I WOULD NEVER USE THAT (E)
para mí, AND para mí no tiene significado (E > Sinsert)
‘for me, and for me it doesn’t have any meaning’
Yo no sé, yo no sé. AND (pause) THEN THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY TOLD
ME NAMES LIKE AH ‘pesca’ (SEinter)
‘I don’t know, I don’t know. AND (pause) then they, you know, they told me
names like ah, “fish”’
pues sí y resulta que me ofrecen THE PEACHES me ofrecen y … (SEintra)
‘well yes and it turns out that they offer me the peaches they offer to me and…’
I DIDN’T EVEN HAVE IDEA YOU HAVE TO PICK UP FROM THE
FLOOR THE STRAWBERRIES. (E > Sconv)
(standard native English: I didn’t even have any/an idea you have to pick strawberries from the ground)
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Thresholds leading to shift: Spanish/English …
227
(In Spanish the indefinite article is omitted before idea but required in English
(either an or any is required with idea); in Spanish the definite article is required
when referring to a general class of something, here strawberries, but omitted in
English; the English pick for gather, as in gather crops, does not allow the up particle
(verbal satellite), which is reserved for pick up, meaning to pick up something that
has fallen to the ground or floor; the standard Spanish equivalent for gather (crops),
cosechar, and even nonstandard variants like pescar never include an additional
verbal satellite equivalent like up; Spanish suelo can mean either ground or floor in
English; this informant has chosen floor instead of the native English ground due
to the failure of the Spanish suelo to coincide exactly to either the English floor or
ground; the influence from Spanish abstract grammatical structure is evident in
these English morpheme strings from this informant.)
I KNOW(garbled English) GROUND, chiles (pronounced in Spanish)
(S > Einsert)
‘I know (garbled English) ground, peppers’
Example (20) shows sample utterances from Informant 56, a 12-year-old male
Guatemalan, the only informant with 100% monolingual English language usage.
All other informants in Stage 3 show no more than 37% monolingual Spanish, with
remaining language type percentages a combination of monolingual English turns,
CS, or English utterances with influence from Spanish abstract grammatical structure.
Less than one percent on average of informants’utterances in Stage 3 are Spanish with
influence from English abstract grammatical sturcture. Informant 56 is typical of
younger, non-Mexican informants, two social factors associated more with informants
in Stages 2 and 3 than in Stage 1.
(20) Sample utterances from a 12-year-old Guatemalan male in Stage 3
(Informant 56 from Table 1)
HOW COULD I WIN, SEE? (E)
WHAT IS THAT? (E)
I, I GO FIRST. (E)
I’M PLAYIN.’ (E)
The sample of informants in our study is not scientifically random, and the number
of informants is limited. Therefore, it is not valid to claim, for example, that females as
a group are innovators unless this claim is qualified by showing the other social factors
associated with females, and so forth for each social factor group. But by showing a
range of interrelated social factors, we can claim association with their corresponding
linguistic factors, as shown in Appendices A– C and as discussed above.
The data as shown in Table 1 indicate, as previously discussed, that CS seems to
precede convergence and that convergence precedes language shift with overlap. This
synchronic array of patterns in and of itself does not necessarily indicate diachronic
change, but associated social factors allow us to note trends which may indicate diachronic
trends. For example, given that younger people use English, CS, and convergence more
than older people, these same younger people, as they gradually replace the older generation, are likely to continue the patterns of Stages 2 and 3 and to perpetuate those patterns
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
228
D. J. Smith
with their own children, thus possibly marginalizing the heavier Spanish patterns of
Stage 1. Stage 1 may on the other hand be reinforced with continued migrations of adults
from Latin America to the community. Migrants continue to arrive in large numbers,
so if this trend continues, Stage 1 may well remain but possibly to a lesser extent than
now, due to the addition of the current younger people who will, as future adults, add
their Stage 2 and 3 language patterns to the mixture that is now Stage 1.
5.4
Implications of the data distribution
and the progression of language shift and change
In general, these language production patterns indicate, therefore, possible language
shift and change patterns. The patterns of language mixing in our data show that (1)
CS precedes convergence and that (2) the type of CS most abundant is single morpheme
insertions. The salience of content as opposed to system morpheme substitution between
languages indicates that grammatical structure is less permeable to change than is the
set of content morphemes in a given language. These patterns are shown in the rank
orderings in Table 1 and are part of the progression of language change and shift, at least
in this kind of contact situation. Some types of CS (especially E > Sinsert) precede and
continue parallel to convergence. This may indicate that the progression of language
change due to contact will first most likely involve content morpheme insertion and
CS followed by grammatical convergence at a later stage.
Specific to the community of this study, possible outcomes of language contact
are: (1) maintaining Spanish along with CS and convergence; (2) shift to English as the
main language, ML turnover; or (3) Spanish attrition and use of Spanish as the main
community language, not as the predominant standard Spanish which currently exists,
but with extensive abstract grammatical influence from English. With the current
steady stream of new Hispanics into the U.S. and into the region of this study, outcome
number one is the most likely. Spanish will not necessarily suffer major attrition for
large numbers of informants (though it is possible for some informants) and will most
likely not shift entirely to English because of the continuing strong presence of standard
Spanish patterns from areas where Spanish is the dominant language.
6 Conclusion
Fifty-six informants’ speech samples in a Georgia Hispanic community were analyzed,
comparing amounts of monolingual and codeswitched utterances with utterances
showing convergence. The comparison reveals that their Spanish does not begin to
converge toward (be influenced grammatically by) English until fewer than 70% of
their utterances are monolingual Spanish. When fewer than 40% of their utterances
are monolingual Spanish, English is more frequently used than Spanish and therefore
English sentences show more convergence (are more influenced by Spanish grammatical
structure) than vice versa. These two threshold points (70% and 40% monolingual
first language utterances) can be used to predict when convergence sets in and when a
language shift is indicated.
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Thresholds leading to shift: Spanish/English …
229
Three steps or stages are indicated by the threshold points. In Stage 1 there is
mostly monolingual Spanish with some CS. In Stage 2 there are larger frequencies of
CS. Spanish with English grammatical patterns and English with Spanish grammatical
patterns are more frequent in Stage 2. In Stage 3 CS continues as well as English with
Spanish grammatical patterns. Monolingual English is, however, the dominant language
type in Stage 3, contrasting with Spanish as the dominant language type in both Stages 1
and 2. The data thus show that both CS and convergence are mechanisms of language
shift and change from dominance in one language to another.
Those who use more monolingual English and who codeswitch more and converge
more, or those in Stages 2 and 3, are more likely to be in one or more of the following
social categories: younger age, female, higher socioeconomic status, more time spent
in the U.S. and in U.S. schools, more reported preference for and use of English. Those
who use more monolingual Spanish and who codeswitch and converge less, or in Stage
1, are more likely to be in one or more of the following social categories: older age,
male, lower socioeconomic status, less time spent in the U.S. and in U.S. schools, less
reported preference for and use of English. While Mexicans as a group codeswitch
more than non-Mexicans, and non-Mexicans converge more than Mexicans, still it is
the younger Mexicans who do most of the CS and younger non-Mexicans who do most
of the converging.
Regarding the future of the community of this study, Spanish will not necessarily
suffer major attrition (though this is possible for some informants) and will most likely
not shift entirely to English with the large number of Hispanics continuing to migrate
into the area.
Research is needed with additional language contact data sets to see if the language
types pattern the same or in a similar way to those in our data. What is most interesting,
however, is that language change from contact with another language appears to occur
at stages that begin at certain threshold points. These threshold points in our data are
around 70% and 40% L1 utterances.
manuscript received:
revision received:
manuscript accepted:
August, 2004
February, 2005
March, 2005
References
GAL, S. (1979). Language shift: Social determinants of linguistic change in bilingual Austria. New
York: Academic Press.
MILROY, L., & WEI, L. (1995). A social network approach to codeswitching: The example of
a bilingual community in Britain. In L. Milroy & P. Muysken (Eds.), One speaker, two
languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on codeswitching (pp.136 – 157). Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge University Press.
MYERS-SCOTTON, C. (1993 [1997]). Duelling languages: Grammatical structure in codeswitching
(1997 edition with a new Afterword). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
MYERS-SCOTTON, C. (2002). Contact linguistics: Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MYERS-SCOTTON, C., & JAKE, J. (2001). Personal communication.
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
230
D. J. Smith
SILVA-CORVALÁN, C. (1994). Language contact and change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
SMITH, D. (2001, October). Spanish meets English in small town Georgia: Codeswitching, convergence, and shift. Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation Conference (NWAV
30), North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
THOMASON, S., & KAUFMAN, T. (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
WALTERS, K. (1995). Codeswitching and diglossic switching in Tunisia: Language contact, social
change, and the political economy of language. Unpublished research proposal, Department
of Linguistics, University of Texas at Austin.
Appendices
Appendices A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2: Social factors and language type usage listed by
informant from highest to lowest S% usage
Note: Appendices A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2 (following) correspond to Table 1, which lists
language type percent usage by informant from highest to lowest S% usage. These
rank-ordered percentages are listed again, as in Table 1, on the right side of each table
in Appendices A– C.
Special notes for individual tables:
Appendices A1,2: In the second “Age” column, O = older/adult, Y = younger/child.
“Yrs schl ctry/orig” = Years of school in country of origin.
“Yrs schl in U.S.” = Years in school in the U.S.
Appendices C1,2: The number (12, 13, 17, 20, 21, 22, 24, 23) heading above a column is
the social factor number; each number refers to the number of the question from which
the information was obtained on the “Social Factors Questionnaire” in Appendix D.
The answer to each question is listed in the column under the number for that question
on the row for each informant. The answers include the names of languages: E = English,
S = Spanish, Q = Q’anjob’al Maya; NA = not applicable.
Appendices A– C : ‘?’ in a space means that for that informant, the answer to that social
factor question was not able to be determined, usually because the informant did not
answer the question.
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
M
M
F
11
12
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
M
M
F
22
23
24
25
F
F
21
28
F
20
F
M
19
M
F
18
27
F
17
26
F
M
16
F
M
9
10
15
M
8
F
M
7
M
M
6
14
11
F
5
13
30
M
4
10
65
10
29
26
27
41
9
10
10
33
33
37
43
11
28
35
23
34
8
47
23
59
31
25
F
M
3
38
Age
2
M
Sex
1
Y
O
Y
O
O
O
O
Y
Y
Y
O
O
O
O
Y
O
O
O
O
Y
O
Y
O
O
O
O
O
O
Age
Region
Guatemala
Peru
Honduras
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Peru
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Dom. Rep.
Mexico
Mexico
Puerto Rico
Mexico
Nicaragua
Peru
Guatemala
El Salvador
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
El Salvador
Mexico
Peru
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
0--2
0--2
7--10
5--6
3--4
3--4
7--10
3--4
7--10
3--4
10+
10+
3--4
10+
3--4
5--6
0--2
7--10
10+
3--4
3--4
0--2
0--2
3--4
3--4
5--6
0--2
10+
Yrs in US
0+--2 yrs
8--10 yrs
0+--2 yrs
8--10 yrs
8--10 yrs
8--10 yrs
11+ yrs
0+--2 yrs
0 yrs
0+--2 yrs
11+ yrs
5--7 yrs
8--10 yrs
11+ yrs
0+--2 yrs
11+ yrs
11+ yrs
0 yrs
?
3--4 yrs
11+ yrs
0+--2 yrs
?
11+ yrs
5--7 yrs
8--10 yrs
8--10 yrs
8--10 yrs
Yrs schl ctry/orig
0+--1 yrs
0 yrs
2+--3 yrs
0 yrs
0 yrs
0 yrs
0+--1 yrs
1+--2 yrs
4+--5 yrs
1+--2 yrs
5+--6 yrs
0 yrs
0 yrs
0 yrs
2+--3 yrs
0 yrs
0 yrs
2+--3 yrs
0 yrs
2+--3 yrs
0 yrs
1+--2 yrs
0 yrs
0 yrs
1+--2 yrs
0 yrs
0 yrs
2+--3 yrs
Yrs schl in US
66
67
69
72
72
76
78
80
80
81
82
82
82
83
86
87
88
89
90
92
94
94
95
96
100
100
100
100
S
Social factors listed by rank ordering of highest to lowest S %
Appendix A1. Social factors listed by rank ordering of highest to lowest S %
Appendix A1:
6
10
7
10
12
3
1
16
5
2
10
1
2
2
2
2
4
1
E
6
3
8
7
9
7
1
4
2
4
2
2
4
1
E>Sinsert
3
3
1
2
1
13
SEintra
13
1
4
3
2
5
S>Econv
3
1
1
4
2
SEinter
6
10
7
1
2
1
5
E>Sconv
S>Einsert
Thresholds leading to shift: Spanish/English …
231
The International Journal of Bilingualism
M
M
F
F
F
M
F
M
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
F
M
F
M
53
54
55
56
M
F
40
52
M
39
F
F
38
51
M
37
F
F
36
M
M
35
50
F
34
49
F
M
F
31
33
M
30
32
F
29
12
34
11
10
12
11
8
11
9
37
7
12
12
11
7
10
9
8
10
8
12
11
36
13
9
20
21
39
Y
O
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
O
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
O
Y
Y
O
O
O
Guatemala
Ecuador
Guatemala
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Peru
Peru
Peru
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Peru
Mexico
Peru
Peru
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Peru
Mexico
Mexico
Peru
Mexico
Peru
10+
3--4
10+
7--10
7--10
3--4
3--4
3--4
7--10
5--6
5--6
7--10
7--10
7--10
5--6
7--10
3--4
7--10
5--6
7--10
3--4
0--2
7--10
5--6
5--6
0--2
5--6
5--6
0 yrs
11+ yrs
0+--2 yrs
0+--2 yrs
0+--2 yrs
0+--2 yrs
0 yrs
3--4 yrs
0 yrs
11+ yrs
0 yrs
0 yrs
0+--2 yrs
0+--2 yrs
0+--2 yrs
0+--2 yrs
0+--2 yrs
0+--2 yrs
0+--2 yrs
0+--2 yrs
0+--2 yrs
5--7 yrs
11+ yrs
0+--2 yrs
3--4 yrs
11+ yrs
8--10 yrs
11+ yrs
3+--4 yrs
1+--2 yrs
2+--3 yrs
3+--4 yrs
2+--3 yrs
2+--3 yrs
1+--2 yrs
2+--3 yrs
3+--4 yrs
3+--4 yrs
0+--1 yrs
4+--5 yrs
?
4+--5 yrs
1+--2 yrs
5+--6 yrs
2+--3 yrs
3+--4 yrs
3+--4 yrs
1+--2 yrs
4+--5 yrs
2+--3 yrs
0+--1 yrs
3+--4 yrs
2+--3 yrs
0+--1 yrs
4+--5 yrs
0+--1 yrs
Yrs schl in US
1
13
21
24
25
29
30
30
34
37
37
39
40
43
43
46
47
50
55
57
60
61
62
63
63
65
S
53
79
13
51
42
50
45
50
30
43
18
13
45
33
18
43
20
27
25
5
15
18
12
14
2
6
E
100
Social factors listed by rank ordering of highest to lowest S %
Appendix A2. Social factors listed by rank ordering of highest to lowest S %
Sex Age Age
Region
Yrs in US
Yrs schl ctry/orig
Appendix A2:
33
4
15
11
11
6
2
18
1
2
2
1
8
25
5
7
14
11
10
E>Sinsert
20
6
2
3
2
7
10
6
8
6
5
6
2
5
2
1
25
2
3
9
3
SEintra
2
6
3
20
20
2
10
1
2
4
1
S>Econv
6
6
5
5
2
2
2
1
3
13
3
1
2
5
4
7
1
18
2
SEinter
33
17
2
2
14
2
1
10
6
2
1
1
1
11
2
E>Sconv
1
1
2
10
3
1
2
S>Einsert
232
D. J. Smith
100
self-employed
no response
3
4
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
restaurant
retired from military
no response
no response
no response
chicken processing plant
no response
chicken processing plant
23
24
25
26
27
28
no response
20
22
restaurant
21
no response
no response
17
19
no response
16
18
no response
company administrator
12
15
chicken processing plant
11
no response
no response
chicken processing plant
chicken processing plant
9
10
14
housewife
no response
8
13
no response
chicken processing plant
7
housewife
6
other factory
no response
chicken processing plant
no response
no response
no response
housewife
housewife
chicken processing plant
housewife
no response
no response
no response
no response
housewife
no response
housewife
housewife
no response
chicken processing plant
no response
teacher
no response
5
no response
housewife
retired
other factory
other factory
other factory
teacher
store
auto mechanic
chicken processing plant
housewife
chicken processing plant
economist (in Peru)
other factory
yard work
store
chicken processing plant
chicken processing plant
pastor
other factory
chicken processing plant
100
housewife
teacher
66
67
69
72
72
76
78
80
80
81
82
82
82
83
86
87
88
89
90
92
94
94
95
96
100
100
S
2
1
2
2
2
2
4
1
E
6
10
7
10
12
3
1
16
5
2
10
Social factors listed by rank ordering of highest to lowest S %
Appendix B1. Social factors listed by rank ordering of highest to lowest S %
Employment of Father
Employment of
Employment of Self
Mother
1
no reponse
no response
other factory
Appendix B1:
6
3
8
7
9
7
1
4
2
4
2
2
4
1
E>Sinsert
3
3
1
2
1
13
SEintra
13
1
4
3
2
5
S>Econv
3
1
1
4
2
SEinter
6
10
7
1
2
1
5
E>Sconv
S>Einsert
Thresholds leading to shift: Spanish/English …
233
The International Journal of Bilingualism
yard work
no response
chicken processing plant
chicken processing plant
construction
store
no response
no response
51
52
53
54
55
56
pastor
48
50
no response
47
49
pastor
46
self-employed
41
chicken processing plant
other factory work
40
chicken processing plant
self-employed
39
45
restaurant
38
44
no response
37
no response
unemployed
36
construction
chicken processing plant
35
43
no response
34
42
construction
chicken processing plant
33
31
32
no response
pastor of church
30
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
chicken processing plant
no response
chicken processing plant
other factory
chicken processing plant
housewife
no response
other factory
housewife
no response
housewife
chicken processing plant
housewife
other factory
no response
teacher
chicken processing plant
teacher
restaurant
no response
housewife
housewife
no response
chicken processing plant
no response
other factory
chicken processing plant
other factory
secretarial assistant
teacher
housewife
full time student
1
13
21
24
25
29
30
30
34
37
37
39
40
43
43
46
47
50
55
57
60
61
62
63
63
S
teaching assistant
65
no response
no response
29
100
53
79
13
51
42
50
45
50
30
43
18
13
45
33
18
43
20
27
25
5
15
18
12
14
2
6
E
Social factors listed by rank ordering of highest to lowest S %
Appendix B2. Social factors listed by rank ordering of highest to lowest S %
Employment of Father
Employment of Mother
Employment of Self
Appendix B2:
33
4
15
11
11
6
2
18
1
2
2
1
8
25
5
7
14
11
10
E>Sinsert
20
6
2
3
2
7
10
6
8
6
5
6
2
5
2
1
25
2
3
9
3
SEintra
2
6
3
20
20
2
10
1
2
4
1
S>Econv
6
6
5
5
2
2
2
1
3
13
3
1
2
5
4
7
1
18
2
SEinter
33
17
2
2
14
2
1
10
6
2
1
1
1
11
2
E>Sconv
1
1
2
10
3
1
2
S>Einsert
234
D. J. Smith
S
S
S
S
Q
25
26
27
28
S
17
S
S
16
24
S
15
23
S
14
S
S
13
22
S
12
S
E
11
E
S
21
S
9
10
20
S
8
S
S
7
E
S
6
19
S
S
5
18
S
S
4
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
S
E
S
E
E
E
E
E
S,Q
E
E
E
E
E
E
S
Q
S
S
S
S
S
S,E
S
S
S
E
S
S,E
S
S
S
S
Q
S,E
S
?
S
S
S
S
E
3
S
2
E
S
1
Q
S
S,E
E
S,E
S,E
S,E
E
E
E
S
S
S
S
E
S
S,E
E
S,E
E
S
S,E
S,E
S,E
S
S
S,E
S
S
NA
E
S,E
E
S,E
E
E
E
S,E
E
E
E
NA
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
S
S,E
S
S
S
E
E
S
NA
S
S,E
S,E
S
E
S
E
S
E
E
S,E
NA
S
S
E
S
E
E
E
S
S
S
S
S
S,E
S
E
S
S,E
S
E
S
S,E
S
E
S
E
S,E
S,E
S
S
S,E
S
E
S
E
S
S
S,E
S,E
S
S
S
S
24
2
2
few
15
25
15
10
5
10
none
many
10
1
none
1
7
1
30
5
7
22
none
5
5
?
none
many
10
23
66
67
69
72
72
76
78
80
80
81
82
82
82
83
86
87
88
89
90
92
94
94
95
96
100
100
100
100
S
Social factors listed by rank ordering of highest to lowest S %
Appendix C1. Social factors listed by rank ordering of highest to lowest S %
12
13
17
20
21
22
Appendix C1:
6
10
7
10
12
3
1
16
5
2
10
1
2
2
2
2
4
1
E
6
3
8
7
9
7
1
4
2
4
2
2
4
1
E>Sinsert
3
3
1
2
1
13
SEintra
13
1
4
3
2
5
S>Econv
3
1
1
4
2
SEinter
6
10
7
1
2
1
5
E>Sconv
S>Einsert
Thresholds leading to shift: Spanish/English …
235
The International Journal of Bilingualism
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
E
S,E
56
S,E
52
55
S
51
S
S
50
Q
S
49
54
S
48
53
S
E
47
S
45
46
S,E
44
E
39
S
S
38
43
S
37
S
S
36
42
S
35
S
S
34
E
S
33
41
S
32
40
S
Q
S
E
E
E
E
E
E,French
E,French
E
E
S
E
S
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
S
E
Q
S
S
S
S
S
S,E
S,E
S,E
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S,E
S
E
E
E
E
E
S
E
S
E
S
S,E
S
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
S
S
S
S,E
S
S
S
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
S,E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
?
E
E
E
E
S
E
E
E
S
S
E
S
S
E
E
E
E
S
S,E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
?
E
E
S,E
E
E
S,E
E
E
E
E
S
E
E
S,E
E
E
S,E
S
E
E
E
E
E
S,E
E
E
S,E
S
E
S
S,E
S
?
31
?
30
S
24
S
S,E
E
S
29
?
300
few
6
5
4
none
6
20
9
10
8
many
4
many
30
19
6
24
few
7
many
25
?
3
4
12
many
23
1
13
21
24
25
29
30
30
34
37
37
39
40
43
43
46
47
50
55
57
60
61
62
63
63
65
S
Social factors listed by rank ordering of highest to lowest S %
Appendix C2. Social factors listed by rank ordering of highest to lowest S %
12
13
17
20
21
22
Appendix C2:
100
53
79
13
51
42
50
45
50
30
43
18
13
45
33
18
43
20
27
25
5
15
18
12
14
2
6
E
33
4
15
11
11
6
2
18
1
2
2
1
8
25
5
7
14
11
10
E>Sinsert
20
6
2
3
2
7
10
6
8
6
5
6
2
5
2
1
25
2
3
9
3
SEintra
2
6
3
20
20
2
10
1
2
4
1
S>Econv
6
6
5
5
2
2
2
1
3
13
3
1
2
5
4
7
1
18
2
SEinter
33
17
2
2
14
2
1
10
6
2
1
1
1
11
2
E>Sconv
1
1
2
10
3
1
2
S>Einsert
236
D. J. Smith
Thresholds leading to shift: Spanish/English …
237
Appendix D
Social Factors Questionnaires
Note: The following questionnaires were administered either in written form or orally
to the informants in the study in order to obtain social background data.
Questionnaire for children:
1. First Name
Last Name
Nombre _________________
Apellido_______________
2. Where were you born?
¿Dónde naciste?city / ciudad_______ state / estado_______ country / país______
3. When were you born?
¿Cuándo naciste? day /día_______, month / mes_______, year / año_______
4. Where do you live now (Cornelia, Baldwin, Clarkesville, Demorest, Alto)? 1
¿Dónde vives ahora (Cornelia, Baldwin, Clarkesville, Demorest, Alto)? _________
5. Where does your father work?
¿Dónde trabaja tu papá?_____________________
6. Where does your mother work?
¿Dónde trabaja tu mamá?_____________________
7. How many years have you been in the U.S.?
¿Cuántos años has estado en los Estados Unidos?_________
8. In what states have you lived and how many years?
¿En qué estados has vivido y por cuántos años?
state / estado _Georgia_
state / estado _________
state / estado _________
state / estado _________
years / años _________
years / años _________
years / años _________
years / años _________
9. Did you attend school in Mexico?
How many years?
¿Asististe a la escuela en Mexico?_________ ¿Por cuántos años?_________
9. Did you attend school in Guatemala?
How many years?
¿Asististe a la escuela en Guatemala?_________ ¿Por cuántos años?_________
11. How many years did you attend school in the U.S.?
¿Por cuántos años asististe a la escuela en los Estados Unidos?_________
12. What language (Spanish,English, Q’anjob’al) do you speak mostly at home?
¿Qué idioma (Español, Inglés, Q’anjob’al) hablas más en casa?_________
13. What other language do you speak at home sometimes?
¿Qué otro idioma hablas a veces en casa?_____________
1
Cornelia, Baldwin, Clarkesville, Demorest, and Alto are local towns in Habersham and Banks Counties in Northeast
Georgia.
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
238
D. J. Smith
14. Who do you speak Spanish with at home?
¿Con quién hablas español en casa?_____________
15. Who do you speak English with at home?
¿Con quién hablas inglés en la casa?____________
16. Who do you speak Q’anjob’al with at home?
¿Con quién hablas q’anjob’al en casa?___________
17. What language do you speak when eating with your family?
¿Qué idioma hablas cuando estás comiendo con tu familia?____________
18. Do you like to speak Spanish?
¿Te gusta hablar español?______
Do you like to speak English?
¿Te gusta hablar inglés?____________
19. Do you like to speak Q’anjob’al?
¿Te gusta hablar q’anjob’al?______
20. What language do you like to speak the best?
¿Qué idioma te gusta hablar más?___________________
21. Which language do you speak mostly at school (regular school)? 2
¿Qué idioma hablas más en la escuela (escuela regular)?___________________
22. Which language do you speak mostly at recess in regular school?
¿Qué idioma hablas más en el recreo en la escuela regular?________________
23. How many friends do you have that speak almost all English?
¿Cuántos amigos tienes que hablan casi todo en inglés?___________________
24. Which language do you speak mostly when you are with your friends?
¿Qué idioma hablas más cuando estás con tus amigos?____________________
25. Which do you want to be called?: Hispanic, Latino, Mexican, Guatemalan,
American?
¿Qué prefieres que alguien te llame?: Hispano, Latino, Mexicano, Guatemalteco,
Americano?___________________
Questionnaire for adults:
1. First Name
Nombre ___________________
Last Name
Apellido ___________________
2. Where were you born?
¿Dónde naciste? city/ciudad_______ state / estado_______ country / país______
3. When were you born?
¿Cuándo naciste? day/día _______ , month / mes_______ , year / año _______
2
“Regular school” is used to refer to the year-round school year and to distinguish it from the summer school
programs (Migrant Education) which many Hispanic children in the community attend. Peer contacts in Migrant
Education summer schools are all Hispanic and in “regular school” are both Anglo and Hispanic.
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Thresholds leading to shift: Spanish/English …
239
4. Where do you live now (Cornelia, Baldwin, Clarkesville, Demorest, Alto)?
¿Dónde vives ahora (Cornelia, Baldwin, Clarkesville, Demorest, Alto)?_________
5. Where do you work?
¿Dónde trabajas tú?__________________________
6. Where does your father work?
¿Dónde trabaja tu papá?__________________________
Where does your mother work?
¿Dónde trabaja tu mamá?__________________________
7. How many years have you been in the U.S.?
¿Cuántos años has estado en los Estados Unidos?______
8. In what states have you lived and how many years?
¿En qué estados has vivido y por cuántos años?
state / estado _Georgia__ years / años__________
state / estado __________ years / años __________
state / estado __________ years / años __________
state / estado __________ years / años __________
9. Did you attend school in Mexico?
How many years?
¿Asististe a la escuela en México? ______ ¿Por cuántos años? _____
10. Did you attend school in Guatemala?
How many years?
¿Asististe a la escuela en Guatemala? _____ ¿Por cuántos años? _____
11. How many years did you attend school in the U.S.?
¿Por cuántos años asististe a la escuela en los Estados Unidos? _____
12. What language (Spanish, English, Q’anjob’al) do you speak mostly at home?
¿Qué idioma (Español, Inglés, Q’anjob’al) hablas más en casa? ___________
13. What other language do you speak at home sometimes?
¿Qué otro idioma hablas a veces en casa?_____________
14. Who do you speak Spanish with at home?
¿Con quién hablas español en casa?___________
15. Who do you speak English with at home?
¿Con quién hablas inglés en la casa?___________
16. Who do you speak Q’anjob’al with at home?
¿Con quién hablas q’anjob’al en casa?___________
17. What language do you speak when eating with your family?
¿Qué idioma hablas cuando estás comiendo con tu familia?____________
18. Do you like to speak Spanish?
¿Te gusta hablar español?_____
Do you like to speak English?
¿Te gusta hablar inglés?_____
19. Do you like to speak Q’anjob’al?
¿Te gusta hablar q’anjob’al?_____
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
240
D. J. Smith
20. What language do you like to speak the best?
¿Qué idioma te gusta hablar más?__________
21. Which language do you speak mostly at your work?
¿Qué idioma hablas más en tu trabajo?___________
22. Which language do you speak mostly at your break at work?
¿Qué idioma hablas más en tu break en el trabajo?_________
23. How many friends do you have that speak almost all English?
¿Cuántos amigos tienes que hablan casi todo en inglés?_____
24. Which language do you speak mostly when you are with your friends?
¿Qué idioma hablas más cuando estás con tus amigos?______________
25. Which do you want to be called?: Hispanic, Latino, Mexican, Guatemalan, American?
¿Qué prefieres que alguien te llame?: Hispano, Latino, Mexicano, Guatemalteco,
Americano?_______________
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016